Search (146 results, page 1 of 8)

0.06175369 = product of:
  0.12350738 = sum of:
    0.12350738 = sum of:
      0.052776836 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052776836 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
      0.070730545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070730545 = score(doc=3280,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3280, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3280)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 10th International Conference, MTSR 2016, Göttingen, Germany, November 22-25, 2016, Proceedings. Eds.: E. Garoufallou

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.058147304 = product of:
  0.11629461 = sum of:
    0.11629461 = sum of:
      0.05971017 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05971017 = score(doc=4869,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
      0.056584436 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056584436 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article gives an overview of the design and organisation of DutchESS, a Dutch information subject gateway created as a national collaborative effort of the National Library and a number of academic libraries. The combined centralised and distributed model of DutchESS is discussed, as well as its selection policy, its metadata format, classification scheme and retrieval options. Also some options for future collaboration on an international level are explored

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.05087889 = product of:
  0.10175778 = sum of:
    0.10175778 = sum of:
      0.0522464 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0522464 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conceptual Knowledge Markup Language (CKML), an application of XML, is a new standard being promoted for the specification of online conceptual knowledge (Kent and Shrivastava, 1998). CKML follows the philosophy of Conceptual Knowledge Processing (Wille, 1982), a principled approach to knowledge representation and data analysis, which advocates the development of methodologies and techniques to support people in their rational thinking, judgement and actions. CKML was developed and is being used in the WAVE networked information discovery and retrieval system (Kent and Neuss, 1994) as a standard for the specification of conceptual knowledge

Date

30.12.2001 16:22:41

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.049402952 = product of:
  0.098805904 = sum of:
    0.098805904 = sum of:
      0.042221468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042221468 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
      0.056584436 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056584436 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The current subject gateways have evolved over time when the discipline of Internet resource discovery was in its infancy. This is reflected by the lack of well-established, light-weight, deployable, easy-to-use, standards for metadata and information retrieval. We provide an introduction to the architecture, standards and software solutions in use by subject gateways, and to the issues that must be addressed to support future subject gateways

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.04361048 = product of:
  0.08722096 = sum of:
    0.08722096 = sum of:
      0.04478263 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04478263 = score(doc=2623,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
      0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04243833 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contemporary retrieval systems, which search across collections, usually ignore collection-level metadata. Alternative approaches, exploiting collection-level information, will require an understanding of the various kinds of relationships that can obtain between collection-level and item-level metadata. This paper outlines the problem and describes a project that is developing a logic-based framework for classifying collection/item metadata relationships. This framework will support (i) metadata specification developers defining metadata elements, (ii) metadata creators describing objects, and (iii) system designers implementing systems that take advantage of collection-level metadata. We present three examples of collection/item metadata relationship categories, attribute/value-propagation, value-propagation, and value-constraint and show that even in these simple cases a precise formulation requires modal notions in addition to first-order logic. These formulations are related to recent work in information retrieval and ontology evaluation.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.043227583 = product of:
  0.08645517 = sum of:
    0.08645517 = sum of:
      0.036943786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036943786 = score(doc=2220,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2220, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2220)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=2220,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2220, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2220)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Creation of more and better metadata, or resource descriptions, is the best means to solve the problems of massive recall and lack of precision associated with Internet information retrieval. Dublin Core Metadata workshops aim to develop the resource descriptions. Describes the 4th workshop held in Canberra March 1997 and the 5th held in Oct. 1997 in Helsinki. DC-4 dealt with element structure with qualifiers language, scheme and type; extensibility issues; and element refinement. DC-5 dealt with element refinement and stability; definition of sub-elements and resource types; and sharing of Dublin Core implementation experiences, one of which is the Nordic Metadata project. The Nordic countries are now well prepared to implement useful new tools built by the Internet metadata community

Source

Nordinfo Nytt. 1997, nos.3/4, S.10-22

0.043227583 = product of:
  0.08645517 = sum of:
    0.08645517 = sum of:
      0.036943786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036943786 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

States that heterogeneous project groups today may be expected to use the mechanisms of the Web for sharing information. Metadata has been proposed as a mechanism for expressing the semantics of information and, hence, facilitate information retrieval, understanding and use. Presents an approach to sharing information which aims to use a semantic modeling language as the basis for expressing the semantics of information and designing metadata schemes. Functioning on the borderline between human and computer understandability, the modeling language would be able to express the semantics of published Web documents. Reporting on work in progress, presents the overall framework and ideas

Date

9. 9.2000 17:22:23

0.043227583 = product of:
  0.08645517 = sum of:
    0.08645517 = sum of:
      0.036943786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036943786 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 3283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=3283,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3283, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3283)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 10th Metadata and Semantics Research Conference, MTSR 2016, held in Göttingen, Germany, in November 2016. The 26 full papers and 6 short papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from 67 submissions. The papers are organized in several sessions and tracks: Digital Libraries, Information Retrieval, Linked and Social Data, Metadata and Semantics for Open Repositories, Research Information Systems and Data Infrastructures, Metadata and Semantics for Agriculture, Food and Environment, Metadata and Semantics for Cultural Collections and Applications, European and National Projects.

0.037052214 = product of:
  0.07410443 = sum of:
    0.07410443 = sum of:
      0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0316661 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04243833 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.

Date

30.12.2008 18:22:46

0.037052214 = product of:
  0.07410443 = sum of:
    0.07410443 = sum of:
      0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0316661 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
      0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04243833 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes metadata development of an application profile for the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) Achievement Standards Network (ASN) in the United States. The ASN is a national repository of machine-readable achievement standards modeled in RDF that shape teaching and learning in the various states. We describe the nature of the ASN metadata and the various uses to which that metadata is applied including the alignment of the standards of one state to those of another and the correlation of those standards to educational resources in support of resource discovery and retrieval.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.036342062 = product of:
  0.072684124 = sum of:
    0.072684124 = sum of:
      0.037318856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037318856 = score(doc=4218,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.

0.030876845 = product of:
  0.06175369 = sum of:
    0.06175369 = sum of:
      0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026388418 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes the information properties of museum specimen labels and machine learning tools to automatically extract Darwin Core (DwC) and other metadata from these labels processed through Optical Character Recognition (OCR). The DwC is a metadata profile describing the core set of access points for search and retrieval of natural history collections and observation databases. Using the HERBIS Learning System (HLS) we extract 74 independent elements from these labels. The automated text extraction tools are provided as a web service so that users can reference digital images of specimens and receive back an extended Darwin Core XML representation of the content of the label. This automated extraction task is made more difficult by the high variability of museum label formats, OCR errors and the open class nature of some elements. In this paper we introduce our overall system architecture, and variability robust solutions including, the application of Hidden Markov and Naïve Bayes machine learning models, data cleaning, use of field element identifiers, and specialist learning models. The techniques developed here could be adapted to any metadata extraction situation with noisy text and weakly ordered elements.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.030876845 = product of:
  0.06175369 = sum of:
    0.06175369 = sum of:
      0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026388418 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.030008432 = product of:
  0.060016863 = sum of:
    0.060016863 = product of:
      0.120033726 = sum of:
        0.120033726 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120033726 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.028292218 = product of:
  0.056584436 = sum of:
    0.056584436 = product of:
      0.11316887 = sum of:
        0.11316887 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11316887 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.028292218 = product of:
  0.056584436 = sum of:
    0.056584436 = product of:
      0.11316887 = sum of:
        0.11316887 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11316887 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.02475569 = product of:
  0.04951138 = sum of:
    0.04951138 = product of:
      0.09902276 = sum of:
        0.09902276 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09902276 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

0.02475569 = product of:
  0.04951138 = sum of:
    0.04951138 = product of:
      0.09902276 = sum of:
        0.09902276 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09902276 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.02475569 = product of:
  0.04951138 = sum of:
    0.04951138 = product of:
      0.09902276 = sum of:
        0.09902276 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09902276 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

0.021219164 = product of:
  0.04243833 = sum of:
    0.04243833 = product of:
      0.08487666 = sum of:
        0.08487666 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08487666 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14